CRT mission statement

A mission statement is usually a set of choice fluffy phrases to put a gloss on what one actually does. The Memorandum and Articles are the underlying rules of a Charity,  it's sensible to draw those up with a wide remit but a Charity can't operate outside of them. Is that what you are looking for? I think this is it www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMmc67pN3PAhUHIMAKHYO8BpAQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcanalrivertrust.org.uk%2Fmedia%2Flibrary%2F1338.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHiv27h6q4P4j17Bicd5BZgp500UA&sig2=auBwVTVfxdUb4QGxBHllhA&bvm=bv.135974163,d.ZGg

also came across this while looking
opencharities.org/charities/1146792

The IWA started out as just the sort of organisation that is needed today - they organised and educated themselves, organised rallies and publicised them to educate the wider public, fearlessly promoted their cause in Parliament, and got down and dirty digging out and restoring canals, even though at times that meant going nose to nose with officious BW staff accompanied by lawyers and police, who attempted to force them to abandon restoration work.

It was not so long ago really, but that all now seems to belong to a positively Arthurian era, lost in the mists of dubious antiquity. From my perspective, they have all too swiftly degenerated into staunch defendants of whoever is in authority, even to the alarming extent of actively promoting extension of CaRT’s authority to the EA rivers.

That last alone, makes them dangerously irresponsible from my perspective.

I ‘can relate’ to the sentiment, but for the little it is worth, CaRT would be bound by the relevant legislation affecting the particular EA waterway. CaRT specific legislation will not apply, even if they take over navigation control.

I say “for the little it is worth”, because they DO seek to apply their legislation to newly acquired rivers regardless of law.

BW inconsistently applied the 1971 Act to the River Brent element of the Grand Union Canal, even though it had no application whatsoever, and there is current dispute over s.8 threats to boaters on the Yorkshire Ouse.

That river was transferred from York City Council to British Waterways in 1989/90. No part of it, however, was added to the list of scheduled river waterways, even though the next Act added on the southern part of the Weaver to those.

The pleasure boat regulations of the 1971 Act do not, therefore, apply, and yet quite a few boats on that public navigable river were threatened earlier this year for not having an up-to-date pleasure boat certificate.

It is going to be an interesting next battle over that. For now, I have advised the protagonists to pay under protest until the Ravenscroft/Dunkley cases are concluded, whereupon should they wish to claim a refund on past fees as the river Brent boaters did, then they could so, and/or run their own challenge should CaRT not prove amenable.

CaRT need to be made aware that any transfer to them of any more rivers from the EA, will bind them to the specific relevant legislation, and that any and all attempts to continue their current "mission" of demanding tolls to keep boats, in violation of the PRN – and to apply inapplicable legislation - will be met with concerted opposition, and yet more embarrassing trips to the High Court.